alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.1



                                WRITTEN STATEMENT
                                       OF
               CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



     The undersigned hereby certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended December 31, 2003 filed by Technology Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.
with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.




Dated:  March 17, 2004                 /s/  Philip Rosner
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Philip Rosner
                                      Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




Dated:  March 17, 2004                 /s/   Joseph A. Gemmo
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Joseph A. Gemmo
                                      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



                                       26
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Julius Gale, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), both rendered May 6,1982, convicting him of peijury in the first degree, grand larceny in the second degree and forgery in the second degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

Defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas was properly denied without a hearing *(see, People v Frederick,*45 NY2d 520). The sentences imposed were not excessive. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
#### Richard ROMERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kelly HARRINGTON, Warden, Respondent- Appellee.

No. 09-55170.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 6, 2011.

Filed June 29, 2011.

Fay Arfa, Esquire, Fay Ara, A. Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Charles Ragland, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for RespondenL-Ap-pellee.

Before: TROTT and RYMER, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief District Judge.*

*

 The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Alaska, Anchorage, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Romero appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2253, and we affirm.

*426I

The district court did not err in dismissing the previously unexhausted claims because “[t]he appropriate time to assess whether a prisoner has exhausted his state remedies is when the federal habeas petition is filed, not when it comes on for a hearing in the district court or court of appeals.” *Gatlin v. Madding,*189 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir.1999) (quoting *Brown v. Maass,*11 F.3d 914, 915 (9th Cir.1993)). Romero had two ways to have his previously unexhausted claims heard: seek a stay pursuant to *Rhines v. Weber,*544 U.S. 269, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 161 L.Ed.2d 440 (2005), or exhaust the claims in state court and then amend his federal petition, the *Kelly v. Small,*315 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir.2003), procedure. He did not successfully pursue either.

II

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Romero’s *Rhines*motion to stay the proceedings. As the district court stated, the proffered reasons were “ordinary and routine” — limited access to the prison library and difficulties meeting the filing deadline — and do not constitute the “limited circumstances” under which a stay is appropriate. *See Wooten v. Kirkland,*540 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting *Rhines,*544 U.S. at 277, 125 S.Ct. 1528).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### CUFF v. CUFF et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 18, 1907.)

Action by Mary Cuff, individually, etc., against Annie Cuff and others.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. Order filed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Hong Liang Lu, certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of UTStarcom, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.      [Paragraphomitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238; 34-47986];

c.      Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

d.      Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b.      Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: June 3, 2005            |
|-----------------------------------------|
| /s/ HONG LIANG  LU                      |   |
| Hong Liang Lu                           |
| *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7748

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DICKINSON NORMAN ADIONSER, a/k/a D.C. Black,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:03-cr-00081-HCM-JEB-1)

Submitted: April 20, 2017 Decided: June 7, 2017

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dickinson Norman Adionser, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dickinson Norman Adionser seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 

relief on his “Emergency Motion for Clarification of District Court Senior Judge Henry 

Coke Morgan’s Jr. Order dated November 2, 2015, filed February 24, 2016 in Regards to 

Appeal Jurisdiction.” With regard to the dismissal of Adionser’s successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (2012) claims, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Adionser has not 

made the requisite showing with respect to these claims. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part. With regard to the denial of 

Adionser’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) claims, we affirm in part for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Adionser, No. 2:03-cr-00081-HCM-JEB-1 (E.D. Va. Oct. 

25, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART
# C_2022276EN.01000901.xml

| 18.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 276/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 276/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2022 — Canon v Commission

(Case T-609/19) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Medical equipment manufacturing sector - Decision imposing fines for implementing a concentration prior to notification and authorisation - Article 4(1), Article 7(1) and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Interim transaction and ultimate transaction - Parking structure - Single concentration - Rights of the defence - Legitimate expectations - Principle of legality - Proportionality - Amount of fines - Mitigating circumstances)

(2022/C 276/13)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Canon Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: U. Soltész, W. Bosch, C. von Köckritz, K. Winkelmann, M. Reynolds, J. Schindler, D. Arts and W. Devroe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-L. Meyer and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, primarily, annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 4559 final of 27 June 2019 imposing fines for failing to notify a concentration in breach of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and for implementing a concentration in breach of Article 7(1) of that regulation (Case M.8179 — Canon/Toshiba Medical Systems Corporation), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Canon Inc. to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Canon Inc. to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00203-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-2021-01861-JP

Before Walker, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Kerr, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

BRADLEY HULSTEIN, Appellant

V.

DAVID VANINGEN, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On August 30, 2021, we notified appellant Bradley Hulstein that the trial-court 

clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal had informed us that he had

not arranged to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.3(a)(2). We warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution unless Hulstein arranged to pay for the clerk’s record and provided us 

with proof of payment within ten days. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 44.3.

Because Hulstein has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, 

we dismiss his appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 

43.2(f).

Hulstein must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: October 7, 2021
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# Federal Register CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

86 FR 36549.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

 Thursday, July 15, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., Virtual Meeting.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

The following matter was also considered: Motion to Amend Directive 68 to Include Additional Information in Quarterly Status Reports to Commission.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

(Authority: Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b)

Laura E. Sinram,

Acting Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2021-15554 Filed 7-19-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
FILED IN6th COURT OF APPEALS    TEXARKANA, TEXAS8/4/2015 2:07:12 PM      DEBBIE AUTREY              Clerk
# C_2019383EN.01007101.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/71 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/71

---

Action brought on 24 September 2019 – Essential Export v EUIPO – Shenzhen Liouyi International Trading (TOTU)

(Case T-633/19)

(2019/C 383/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Essential Export SA (San José, Costa Rica) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Liouyi International Trading Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark TOTU in red and black – Application for registration No 16 736 712

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2019 in Case R 362/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | reverse the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

reverse the contested decision;

| — | award the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

award the applicant’s costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
# C_2019295EN.01005201.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/52

---

Action brought on 2 July 2019 — Rigo v Parliament

(Case T-428/19)

(2019/C 295/67)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Mario Rigo (Noale, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;

| — | order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.

---
# C_2019172EN.01002201.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (United Kingdom) made on 18 March 2019 — United Biscuits (Pensions Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

(Case C-235/19)

(2019/C 172/25)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: United Biscuits (Pensions Trustees) Limited, United Biscuits Pension Investments Limited

Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Question referred

Are supplies of such pension fund management services (PFM Services) as are provided to the Trustees by (a) Insurers and/or (b) Non-Insurers ‘insurance transactions’ within the meaning of Article 135(1)(a) of the VAT Directive (1) (formerly Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive)?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1).

---
# C_2019172EN.01003801.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/38

---

Action brought on 11 March 2019 — Telefónica and Telefónica de España v Parliament and Council

(Case T-162/19)

(2019/C 172/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain), and Telefónica de España, SA (Madrid) (represented by: F. González Díaz, B. Langeheine and J. Blanco Carol, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament and Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| — | declare the application for annulment to be admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application for annulment to be admissible;

| — | annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Article 50 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);

| — | order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law which are, in essence, either identical or similar to the pleas in law relied on in Case T-161/19, Deutsche Telekom v Parliament and Council.

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1971 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Agency for Support for BEREC (BEREC Office), amending Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 (OJ L 321, 17.12.2018, p. 1).

---